DocketNumber: 20-11157
Filed Date: 9/7/2021
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2021
Case: 20-11157 Document: 00516004769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 7, 2021 No. 20-11157 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Bernice Benitez, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:20-CR-26-1 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Bernice Benitez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,386 U.S. 738
(1967), and United States v. Flores,632 F.3d 229
(5th Cir. 2011). Benitez has filed a response in which she raises claims of ineffective * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-11157 Document: 00516004769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2021 No. 20-11157 assistance of counsel and requests an extension of time to seek the representation of retained counsel. Benitez’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner,158 F.3d 901
, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). Additionally, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Benitez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar,739 F.3d 829
, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Benitez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 2